Bishop Auxentios – GTOCS Trojan Horse by Vladimir Moss
August 11, 2015 (Source: http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com)
“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts,” said Virgil, thinking of the famous story from Homer’s Iliad of how the city of Troy was betrayed by the gift of a giant wooden horse. Once the horse was received inside the gates of Troy, soldiers jumped out of it during the night and captured the city… The True Orthodox Church of Greece (GTOC) could be compared to the city of Troy, and its union with the Greek Old Calendarist Cyprianites – to the Trojan horse, a gift that GTOC has hailed as a gift from God, but which may well turn out to be a very damaging trap.
The trap is revealed by the Cyprianite Bishop Auxentios of Etna and Portland, who, helped by his spiritual father, the retired Metropolitan Chrysostomos (emeritus professor, as we are yet again reminded), has published a statement that proclaims something that very many have known for a long time but which GTOC has assiduously tried to conceal: that these two bishops, at any rate, have neither repented of their Cyprianism nor have any intention of hiding the fact.
The statement is written in the very distinctive Cyprianite style – over-long, flowery and self-indulgent. But we shall cut to the quick, ignoring the rights and wrongs of Bishop Auxentios’ quarrel with an anonymous Greek critic, and highlighting the following sentences:
- “Little more than a year ago, the two major canonical groups of Old Calendarists in Greece and in this country united…” This is false. One of the canonical groups in question – GTOC – was canonical; the other – the Cyprianites – was not. In 1984 the Cyprianites separated from GTOC accusing GTOC of having a false ecclesiology. In 1986 GTOC defrocked Metropolitan Cyprian, accusing him of schism and other things. In this situation, there is no way in which both these groups could be called canonical – and they certainly did not consider each other to be so.
Everything that Moss wrote to counter the claims of + Auxentios (charges of heresy, depositions, etc) was considered as if it had never been by the GOC. Plus, these bishops said much the same quite plainly in past statements and in their ‘Orthodox Tradition’ periodical AFTER the Union; nothing new here. However, none of this bodes well for the future. The Florinite synods of +Kallinikos and + Makarios have both been charged with heresy: Cyprianism and Name-worshipping.
Maximus,
I’m unclear on what you are saying. What I took from Bp. Auxentios’ letter was that the Synod in Resistance was just as canonical as the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos, and that the union was on equal terms, and that there were no doctrinal problems with the former SiR. Vladimir Moss (and others), however, have stated that this position is anti-historical in comparison to how the other Greek Synods behaved towards the SiR.
Fr. Enoch,
Everything that Moss said has been countered by these official GOC statements:
“There has never existed a heresy with the name of “Cyprianism,” and never did our Holy Synod officially employ this term.”
“Much was written, in an intensely charged atmosphere, especially from 1984 and following, which some people today maliciously and er- roneously invoke in order to provoke new tensions. But we, as responsible Shepherds, now consign them, by the Grace of God, to oblivion, emulating the example of the Holy Fathers, such as that of the Holy Patri- archs Ignatios and Photios after their reconciliation.example of the Holy Fathers, such as that of the Holy Patriarchs Ignatios and Photios after their reconciliation.”
Maximus,
I find it a little difficult to believe that the official ecclesiological position paper of the SiR wasn’t official. What else was it? An official opinion? A probabalistic assumption?
In Christ,
Fr. Enoch
I agree Fr.
However, the Union statement said that they didn’t hold to it dogmatically. SiR’s past statements have to be read now in context with the official Union statement.
Greece is a complicated place. Don’t worry so much.